-
Thank You For Visiting... Please Click Here and sign up to contribute and reply to posts and download the resources.
Ribblehead
- Thread starter Flack
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2017
- Messages
- 3,525
So you can correct it differently
Balance wise the image reads in the wrong direction, because we read left to right. If you imagine the image flipped vertically you build up from the viaduct in the distance on the left to it growing nearer the right. That maybe why most shots are from Whernside.
I spent hours on Whernside in the 80s with a friend who was a keen railway photographer, I can't remember what steam engine was due, it was sunny, then we had a snow storm, and due to issues the loco route was changed, to the West Coast line to Scotland. Luckily someone from the signal box came down the valley to tell the waiting photographers. The weather in the area changes on a whim.
That day's photography and the initial prints I made were the turning point and a complete change in direction. I was printing for a camera club audience, high contrast, and realised I was following their formulaic approach, and it wasn't what I wanted . . . . . .
Ian
A bit of front rise?
It’s very easy to make suggestions from indoors. I’ve only been there in a train where we stopped at the top, for a walk-round.
Would it have been possible to move a little to the right to see more air inside more of the arches?
For me, the thing about the grass is that contains a lot of the same kind of information, as one blade of grass looks very much like another. This is a very roundabout way of saying it’s less interesting than the sky or the viaduct itself.
I do hope this isn’t too much advice.
It’s very easy to make suggestions from indoors. I’ve only been there in a train where we stopped at the top, for a walk-round.
Would it have been possible to move a little to the right to see more air inside more of the arches?
For me, the thing about the grass is that contains a lot of the same kind of information, as one blade of grass looks very much like another. This is a very roundabout way of saying it’s less interesting than the sky or the viaduct itself.
I do hope this isn’t too much advice.
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2021
- Messages
- 249
I hope it is okay to post a non-LF image here that shows a very slightly different angle of the same shot. A 'bit more air in the arches' as David M suggested. I too have lots of grass all of which is oversharpened What a wonderful area for photography and especially LF.
What a wonderful area for photography and especially LF.
If I may comment again, the 35mm shot doesn’t seem to be able to make up its mind about what it wants to show.
Interesting foreground, interesting sky and interestingly concealed viaduct. Because they are so equal, the eye and mind move restlessly from one to the other without discovering a resolution. Cropping out either most of the sky or most of the grass gives two fairly satisfactory panoramas, but this was probably not your intention.
The drone shot seems much more satisfactory. The exposure seems better too, but as we’ve discussed before, this may be an effect from my screen.
As this is a forum for LF, I should say that the converging verticals are entirely acceptable here as it’s very clearly an aerial shot.
Is the 35mm shot entirely level?
Interesting foreground, interesting sky and interestingly concealed viaduct. Because they are so equal, the eye and mind move restlessly from one to the other without discovering a resolution. Cropping out either most of the sky or most of the grass gives two fairly satisfactory panoramas, but this was probably not your intention.
The drone shot seems much more satisfactory. The exposure seems better too, but as we’ve discussed before, this may be an effect from my screen.
As this is a forum for LF, I should say that the converging verticals are entirely acceptable here as it’s very clearly an aerial shot.
Is the 35mm shot entirely level?